WHAT MONEY COULD BUY: A REPLY TO MICHAEL SANDEL.
According to Michael Sandel in recent decades we have witnessed a change in our thinking and acting. Namely we have become to think more in terms of economics and we have also started to buy and sell a lot more things. Sandel finds this troubling and presents two arguments: (1) the inequality and fa...
| Publicado en: | Problems / Problemos Vol. 88; pp. 166 - 176 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Vilnius University
2015
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| Sumario: | According to Michael Sandel in recent decades we have witnessed a change in our thinking and acting. Namely we have become to think more in terms of economics and we have also started to buy and sell a lot more things. Sandel finds this troubling and presents two arguments: (1) the inequality and fairness argument, which states that such practises help to transfer inequalities, and (2) the corruption argument, which states that such practises corrupt the nature of the thing being bought and sold. It is argued here that neither of those arguments works in the way Sandel intends. It is also shown that a charitable reading allows us to extract a third implicit argument which does not work either. The article ends with a brief discussion of two arguments which show promise in proving Sandel's point, but unfortunately are left underdeveloped by Sandel. Pasak Michaelo Sandelo, pastaraisiais dešimtmečiais mes esame savo mąstymo ir elgesio pokyčių liudininkai. Tiksliau sakant, mes imame vis daugiau mąstyti ekonomikos terminais ir imame parduoti ir pirkti daug daugiau dalykų. Sandelas, kurio manymu, tai kelia nerimą, pateikia du argumentus: (1) nelygybės ir teisingumo argumentą, teigiantį, jog tokios praktikos perduoda nelygybes, ir (2) iškraipymo argumentą, teigiantį, jog tokios praktikos iškraipo perkamo ar parduodamo dalyko prigimtį. Šiame straipsnyje parodoma, kad nė vienas iš šių argumentų neveikia taip, kaip Sandelas sumanęs, ir kad geranoriškas skaitymas leidžia aptikti ir implicitinį trečiajį argumentą, tačiau ir jis neveikia. Straipsnis baigiamas trumpai aptariant du argumentus, kurie turi potencialo pagrįsti Sandelo nuomonę, tačiau jis palieka juos neišplėtotus. |
|---|